FOOD adulteration is not merely a matter of consumer dissatisfaction. It is a pressing public health crisis in Bangladesh, where it causes widespread sickness, financial hardship and long-term damage to public trust in food safety. As an everyday occurrence, food adulteration in Bangladesh is a silent but dangerous affliction, affecting millions each year. A report of the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies reveals that about 26 million people suffer from food-borne illnesses annually, a number that continues to grow as the problem remains inadequately addressed.
The severity of this issue is further underscored by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, which ranks Bangladesh among the nations with the highest malnutrition rates globally. With a population density that is among the highest in the world and a rapidly growing demographic, the effects of food adulteration are bound to worsen, particularly as the World Health Organization predicts that by 2025, two-thirds of the global population over 60 years old will reside in developing countries, where the risk of food-borne illnesses is elevated.
Despite the prevalence of this issue, the current legal framework seems insufficient. While mobile courts and various government bodies regularly take action against offenders, the focus predominantly remains on punishment. Several laws such as the Penal Code, the Consumers鈥� Right Protection Act, and the Food Safety Act tackle food safety violations, often by imposing fines, imprisonment, or other penalties. However, these laws fail to address the most pressing concern: the ongoing suffering of the victims. Those harmed by adulterated food often face serious physical health issues, leading to medical expenses and, in many cases, a loss of income. This financial burden compounds the pain of their suffering, but current laws do little to offer a meaningful financial remedy for the affected.
At this juncture, it is essential to consider the potential for tort law to play a critical role in addressing the gap between legal action and compensation for victims of food adulteration. Tort law, which provides for civil damages when a party鈥檚 wrongful act causes harm to another, could be an essential tool for the victims of adulteration, offering them a chance to seek restitution directly from the wrongdoers. This legal approach goes beyond punitive measures and allows victims to recover compensation for the financial losses and physical pain they endure. In many jurisdictions, tort law is a key method for enforcing consumer rights and it could be used similarly in Bangladesh, where the link between food adulteration and its devastating effects is clear.
The cornerstone of tort law lies in the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium, which means 鈥榳here there is a wrong, there is a remedy.鈥� In the context of food adulteration, this principle could offer a much-needed solution, as it entitles victims to seek financial compensation for the harm they suffer. The Consumers鈥� Right Protection Act, particularly Section 66, allows consumers to file civil suits against manufacturers and claim compensation for damages. This section permits consumers to seek compensation up to five times the amount assessed for the damage, provided the seller鈥檚 actions can be proven to have harmed the consumer. While the law provides for a civil remedy, it is rarely applied in cases of food adulteration, leaving many victims without the recourse they deserve.
The law in Section 19 specifically addresses anti-consumer rights practices, including the sale of adulterated goods. Section 19(b) prohibits the sale of adulterated food, while Section 19(c) bans food items containing ingredients that are harmful to health. The Food Safety Act 2013 similarly defines 鈥榓dulterated food鈥� as food that has been tampered with in any way to enhance its appearance, flavour, or preservation, often with ingredients that are harmful to consumers. Yet, while the legal framework exists, the practical application of these laws remains ineffective in offering tangible relief to victims.
A critical challenge in seeking compensation through tort law is establishing causation 鈥� the link between the defendant鈥檚 actions and the harm suffered by the victim. To win a tort case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the harm was a direct result of the defendant鈥檚 actions. This can be challenging, as victims often struggle to prove the exact nature of the adulteration or how it led to their illness. In the case of food adulteration, there are two primary forms of causation: factual and legal. Factual causation means that the harm would not have occurred without the defendant鈥檚 actions 鈥� such as using harmful chemicals in food. Legal causation refers to the idea that the defendant鈥檚 actions were sufficiently foreseeable and predictable that they should be held accountable for the harm caused.
For example, if a food producer knowingly used toxic ingredients to enhance the colour or appearance of food and a consumer fell ill as a result, the producer could be held liable under both factual and legal causation. The victim would need to establish that the adulteration directly caused the harm, whether by consuming the food or through other demonstrable evidence of contamination. This principle of causation is fundamental in tort law and forms the basis of compensation claims in food adulteration cases.
There are several ways in which a food producer or seller might be shown to have intentionally adulterated food. These include demonstrating that the producer acted negligently by using harmful chemicals, or that they knowingly sold food with undisclosed allergens. Additionally, if the food producer failed to adhere to proper safety standards 鈥� such as ensuring hygienic practices or using safe ingredients 鈥� their actions could be deemed reckless, further strengthening the case for civil liability. In these instances, tort law could provide the necessary legal framework to ensure that victims receive adequate compensation.
Internationally, there are several notable cases where food producers have been held liable for food adulteration. One such case is that of Peter Vamos in 1989, when he sued Coca-Cola after discovering two AA batteries in a bottle of diet Coke. The court awarded him significant compensation for both past and future suffering, affirming that Coca-Cola was liable for the contamination due to negligence. Similarly, in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson, a woman fell ill after drinking a ginger beer containing a dead snail. The court awarded her damages, establishing a key precedent in tort law regarding product liability. These cases highlight the importance of holding manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products and the same principles could be applied in Bangladesh to address food adulteration.
The question remains, however, whether there is a clear, codified framework for determining the amount of compensation in food adulteration cases. Bangladesh now lacks a clear scale for assessing damages in these cases. This vagueness often leaves victims uncertain about their potential compensation, creating barriers to pursuing legal action. In more developed legal systems, courts consider factors such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, reputational damage and lost income when calculating compensation. Without such guidelines, victims in Bangladesh may struggle to receive fair restitution for the harm they have endured.
Moreover, Bangladesh鈥檚 constitution guarantees the right to basic necessities, such as food, under Article 15 and the right to life under Article 32. The prevalence of food adulteration constitutes a direct violation of these rights and the failure of the state to address the issue adequately is a significant concern. Both the state and private actors must work together to ensure that victims of food adulteration are not left without recourse. The government must introduce more comprehensive civil laws that codify the process for claiming damages, while also raising public awareness about the rights of consumers to seek compensation for harm caused by adulterated food.
In conclusion, food adulteration in Bangladesh is not just a health concern 鈥� it is a legal issue that demands a stronger, more effective response. While current laws focus on punishment, they fail to address the real financial and physical toll faced by victims. By integrating tort law into the legal response to food adulteration, Bangladesh could offer a more robust solution, enabling victims to seek financial restitution for their suffering. This shift would not only ensure that manufacturers are held accountable for their actions, but it would also empower consumers to assert their rights and seek justice. It is time for Bangladesh to recognise the importance of tort law in protecting public health and consumer rights, ensuring that those harmed by adulterated food receive the compensation they deserve.
听
Wasit Zawad Ismam is a law student at the North South University.